Constitutional Oligarchy?

[Dr.Traveler]

We have a deficit so ******* huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.

What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?

After Obamacare and the massive payout of cash to big Pharm with the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, of course its good to be concerned about how much money corporations are spending.

Individuals I could care less. If you want to spend your personal wealth on a candidate, be my guest. Just be willing to stand behind it.

 

[Sallow]

Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.

Dead wrong?

People, for the most part, left Europe for the United States for a multitude of reasons but primarily for Religious/Ethnic Freedom..and the right to "get paid".

That was impossible in cultures that were so steeped in Aristocracies.

"Elections Money" does not equal speech.

What it represents is a return to the very thing most people left in the first place.

Most of Michele Bachman's/Sharron Angle's/Christine O'Donnell's/Scott Brown's donations were around 50 bucks each.

Hardly "aristocracies."

One campaign..Sharron Angle's, raised some 14 million dollars. That's a little hard with people giving just "50 bucks each".

 

[konradv]

I think we'd public financing of elections. Our representitives spend too much time begging for contributuions and essentially selling their votes to whomever can bundle the highest amount.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have a deficit so ******* huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.

What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?

After Obamacare and the massive payout of cash to big Pharm with the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, of course its good to be concerned about how much money corporations are spending.

Individuals I could care less. If you want to spend your personal wealth on a candidate, be my guest. Just be willing to stand behind it.

As I said in Cairo, when you start to give a **** about how much the government spends I'll start to take you more seriously when you talk about what the people can spend

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We have a deficit so ******* huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.

What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?

After Obamacare and the massive payout of cash to big Pharm with the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, of course its good to be concerned about how much money corporations are spending.

Individuals I could care less. If you want to spend your personal wealth on a candidate, be my guest. Just be willing to stand behind it.

As I said in Cairo, when you start to give a **** about how much the government spends I'll start to take you more seriously when you talk about what the people can spend

Actually Frank, I do care. I've got a 2 year old. Ticks me off to no end that he's inheriting this debt.

 

[Liability]

Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Odd that people who don't support limits on government spending support limits on campaign contributions

Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.

You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big ******* deal!

Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!

One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, time for a CostCo run, so says the 'boss'.
I look forward to Liability and his response. LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.

You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big ******* deal!

Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!

One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.

What crap! Total utter crap!

Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

Freedom Of Flip-Floppin' appears to be gaining approval, as well!!

​

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

So you're unwilling to publically support the causes you believe in? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Revere]

Why? Nobody is compelled to disclose who they vote for. What's the difference?

 

[Ozmar]

Why? Nobody is compelled to disclose who they vote for. What's the difference?

I see who is on your avatar, so I'll excuse you lack of logic.

 

[MikeK]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

A corperation is a people?

What are the UNIONS but Coprporations? Their products are manipulation of their membership and politicians.

The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit or to operate as a public service. The purpose of a union is to prevent exploitation of workers. There are no similarities or comparisons between the three entities.

I wonder if the OP thinks Unions should have limits on their speech too?

I don't know what the OP thinks but I believe the speech of no citizen, rich or poor, should be limited by how much money (property) he can afford to give to political representatives.

Speech is the written or spoken word. Money is property. To allow oneself to be deluded into believing money is speech is either an example of effective brainwash or a measure of one's basic intelligence.

There is no good reason why federal elections should not be funded with public money and rigid punishments should be imposed for transferring or attempting to transfer any kind of material "contribution" or other form of gratuity to any politician by anyone for any reason. The influence of money in the political process has gotten completely out of hand and the inevitable effect is disaster. What else can come of it other than eventual corporatocracy, then fascism?

The fact that prospective enactment of such a law is never discussed is clear evidence of the level of corruption which presently affects our government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big ******* deal!

Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!

One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.

What crap! Total utter crap!

Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!

CF, you seem to be getting dumber. In 1980 we purchased our home for $58,950, today its value is 10 times that price.
Reagan spent $$$ on a huge military build-up, cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and totally ignored the American infrastructure, cities, a drug crisis (Just Say NO, how did that work) and an emerging health crisis (AIDS), likely because he and others of his kind figured it only killed gays so it was not worth worrying about.
BTW, the issue was not the debt, that you injected it into the debate is cause for my to accuse you of posting another red herring.
You really are dumb, aren't you.

 

[MikeK]

I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.

There is no difference.

Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy ***** who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.

My bad.

It appears that you are too young to remember what life in America was like before the union movement gave birth to the Middle Class, the benefits of which you probably enjoy today in spite of your obvious contempt for the very source of those benefits. But whatever your situation, unless you are among the wealthy it will serve your interests to learn about the union movement in America and what your life would be like had it not occurred.

If you have no one to teach you, and if you don't like libraries, I recommend the following movies to you. While they're not quite as substantive as are history books they will get the idea across to you:

Harlan County USA

Norma Rae

The Molly McGuires

On The Waterfront

Matewan

Hoffa

And while it's certainly true that some unions are corrupt, all of them are not. Even if they were, a corrupt union is still 100% better than no union for the working class American. And if you need immediate proof of that, just look back on the most economically and socially productive years in American history, because they began at the same time as the union movement and they declined at the same time as the unions came under attack by the corporatist sonofabitch, Ronald Reagan.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why? Nobody is compelled to disclose who they vote for. What's the difference?

It might help your cause Revere if you tried thinking. Let me politely suggest some who can't vote - they are not U.S. Citizens - can now fund a candidate or a cause with unlimited 'donations'. Such an entitity might even be a foreign nation.

Does that not bother you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

Wow. I once though you were simply and arrogant ass; now I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.

What crap! Total utter crap!

Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!

CF, you seem to be getting dumber. In 1980 we purchased our home for $58,950, today its value is 10 times that price.
Reagan spent $$$ on a huge military build-up, cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and totally ignored the American infrastructure, cities, a drug crisis (Just Say NO, how did that work) and an emerging health crisis (AIDS), likely because he and others of his kind figured it only killed gays so it was not worth worrying about.
BTW, the issue was not the debt, that you injected it into the debate is cause for my to accuse you of posting another red herring.
You really are dumb, aren't you.

Reagan beat the crap out of your home team the USSR, sorry if you're still having a hard time coming to terms with it. Since the New Deal, they spent all that time effort and money infiltrating US government and culture and media only to go home to find Reagan telling them to "Tear down this wall!"

You Progressives are so pathetic.

The only thing you left off your list of "Banal, Stupid Things a Progressive Needs to Know about Reagan" is the whole ketchup as a vegetable nonsense.

Clue: Get one today!

 

[Wry Catcher]

What crap! Total utter crap!

Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!

CF, you seem to be getting dumber. In 1980 we purchased our home for $58,950, today its value is 10 times that price.
Reagan spent $$$ on a huge military build-up, cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and totally ignored the American infrastructure, cities, a drug crisis (Just Say NO, how did that work) and an emerging health crisis (AIDS), likely because he and others of his kind figured it only killed gays so it was not worth worrying about.
BTW, the issue was not the debt, that you injected it into the debate is cause for my to accuse you of posting another red herring.
You really are dumb, aren't you.

Reagan beat the crap out of your home team the USSR, sorry if you're still having a hard time coming to terms with it. Since the New Deal, they spent all that time effort and money infiltrating US government and culture and media only to go home to find Reagan telling them to "Tear down this wall!"

You Progressives are so pathetic.

The only thing you left off your list of "Banal, Stupid Things a Progressive Needs to Know about Reagan" is the whole ketchup as a vegetable nonsense.

Clue: Get one today!

LOL, you really do tickle my funny boy CF. First of all I spent most of 1967 and 1968 on a U.S. Navy DD patroling and and a couple of times finding Russian Subs in the Western Paciific - I was not rooting for the Russian team then or now.
One more red herring with an add-on, a personal attack (suggesting I rooted for the Soviet Union and the U.S.A.)
thanks for sharing.